If you're
concerned about a threat to your neighborhood or environment anywhere in the USAthen contact CEDS at 410-654-3021
(call-text) or Help@ceds.org for an initial no-cost discussion of strategy options.

Community & Environmental Defense Services (CEDS) has
refined a new approach, known as Politically Oriented Advocacy, which
triples the rate at which citizens win land use and environmental battles.
The approach also:

expands the base of public (voter) support for
responsible growth management;

increases the membership and number of active
volunteers supporting grass-roots groups; and

leads to more citizens becoming highly-effective
leaders at the grass-roots level and in appointed or elected positions.

Over the past five years CEDS has conducted intensive
research across the country on what does and doesn't work for citizens
seeking to resolve concerns about proposed development projects. Politically
Oriented Advocacy evolved from the following major findings:

1 in 200 Projects
Stopped:While one in 70 projects
are temporarily halted through this conventional approach, the applicant
then revises plans to address legal defects, resubmits the plans, the
plans are approved, and the project gets built. Only 1 in 200 projects
is stopped permanently.

$10,000 Yields Little
Return:About 40% of citizens
employ the conventional Hire a lawyer to stop the project approach. Many
of the attorneys hired by citizens have minimal experience with land
use-zoning law. They tend to exhaust citizen resources contesting the
first permit-approval the project requires without evaluating all others
to determine which provides the best opportunity for success. Citizens
pursuing this conventional approach spend an average of $10,000 -
occasionally more then $100,000 - mostly getting very little for their
money.

Members & Volunteers
Lost:Citizens who follow the
conventional approach tend to come away with a very negative attitude
towards government and the growth-management process. These citizens
usually lose interest in growth-management advocacy, which denies
grass-roots groups of the fresh blood needed to be successful.

Equitable Solutions =
25% Success:Another 40% of
citizens seek to resolve specific concerns about a development project.
Examples of specific concerns include increased traffic, overcrowded
schools, inadequate parking, visual impacts, loss of open space, and
drainage-pollution issues. Half of these citizens (20% of the total)
negotiate with the applicant, government staff, or elected officials to
change project plans in ways that will prevent impacts yet allow the
applicant to get most of what they want. CEDS calls these changes equitable solutions. These 20% of citizens win their negotiations
about half the time. They tend to have a much better (realistic)
attitude about growth management and many go on to become active
volunteers with grass-roots groups or to serve on boards, commissions,
and councils.

90% of Impacts
Correctable:Our research shows
that most of the concerns citizen have regarding proposed development
can be resolved through an equitable solution. But we've also
found that many newcomers to land use advocacy, as well as a number of
the attorneys with minimal land-use and zoning experience, are unaware
that effective, reliable win-win solutions are available. Because
of this lack of awareness both newcomers and inexperienced attorneys
believe that the only way to win is through the conventional stop
the project approach. Of course, this simply isn't true.

20% Give Up Far Too Quickly:The remaining 20%
make some effort towards either stopping a project or resolving specific
concerns, but tend to give up quickly. A large portion of these citizens
assume that if they cannot afford to hire a lawyer there's no way they
can win. These citizens report getting very little for their effort and
few continue to participate in advocacy.

The preceding research findings plus more then 30 years
of helping citizens with land use and environmental issues throughout the
nation, allowed CEDS to come up with a new approach which we call
Politically Oriented Advocacy. We know from our own experience that
this approach will:

Perhaps 90% or more of development impacts can be resolved by modifying
project plans in ways that fully resolve citizen concerns yet allow the
applicant to get most of what they want. Following is an example of an
Equitable Solution. A developer proposes to convert a residential dead-end
street into a through-road. The residents find an alternative which
eliminates the need for this action or win measures that greatly reduce
cut-through traffic volume. The alternative can be implemented without
causing more then a small decrease in the number of housing units or
commercial floor-space. This is an Equitable Solution. For further
detail visit: Equitable Solutions.

The negotiations are between
citizens and the applicant and/or a government agency. For the applicant,
the question of whether to settle with citizens comes down to this:

Will it cost me more to do what
citizens want compared to the expense of fighting them?

If the fight will be more expensive
then settlement usually follows, particularly if the applicant believes
citizens are mobilizing the resources needed to fight a long political-legal
campaign. Most government agencies are used to negotiating with applicants
and citizens to resolve issues. It's easier to get an agency to compel an
applicant to implement a genuine equitable solution compared to convincing
them to stop the project. Of course the agency must have the legal authority
to compel the applicant to implement the solution. But this usually isn't a
problem. If it is then Political Action First will substantially increase
the probability that the agency and the applicant will find a way to satisfy
citizen concerns.

Citizens tend to have the
advantage in a political arena while applicants are more likely to prevail
in a legal proceeding. Most of the impacts which prompt citizens to fight a
development project reflect some defect in the growth-management process.
Each defect provides an opportunity to win the support of other voters and
citizen groups who are (or could be) harmed by the same defect. Usually the
defect can be resolved through a change in policy or law. The change could
be made by an appointed government official, like an agency head, or by
convincing elected officials to change the law. To bring about this change
citizens must mount an aggressive campaign to mobilize an ever-increasing
number of voters to lobby appointed or elected officials to change a policy
or the law. As the campaign progresses it is likely citizens will create the
critical amount of pressure needed to force officials to act. A political
success provides many benefits beyond winning a single development battle.

Each development project may
require a dozen or more approvals (rezoning, special exception, conditional
use permit, waiver, variance, wetland permit, etc.). The goal of legal
action is either to: a) require implementation of an equitable solution as a
condition of an approval, or b) stop a truly bad project by blocking the
issuance of an approval.

The first step in Smart Legal
Strategies is to
identify all required approvals then research each to determine which
provides the best opportunity for success. While this may seem like common
sense few novice advocates and inexperienced attorneys perform this
research. Below, in A Brief How To, you'll learn where to find
instructions for this easy to perform research. We urge you NOTto hire an attorney before completing the
research.

Why?

Because you won't know what type of
attorney you need - land use, zoning, environmental, etc. - until you've
done this research. More importantly,
you won't have the background needed to interview prospective attorneys (we
urge you to screen at least three) to learn which is likely to provide the
best representation and how to keep legal fees at a minimum without lowering
the probability of success. For further detail on this approach click
the following text: Smart Legal Strategies.

An introduction to finding equitable solutions and the
other three steps of Politically Oriented Advocacy can be found in
Chapters 1 and 2 of the CEDS book How To Win
land Development Issues. This 300-page book can be downloaded free
from the CEDS website: ceds.org. Chapters 3
through 26 address the specific impacts most likely to cause concern among
nearby residents and other citizens. These chapters also contain suggestions
for possible Equitable Solutions. Chapter 35 explains how to
research which political and legal strategies are most likely to result in
victory. Chapters 37 and 39 contain advice on Aggressive Negotiation.
Suggestions regarding Political Action First is presented in
Chapters 36, 39, 41, and 42. Refer to Chapter 40 for Smart Legal Action.

CEDS offers several no-cost forms of assistance to
citizens seeking to protect a neighborhood or the environment from
development impacts.

First,
if you have a copy of project plans then mail them to us. We'll do a quick,
initial review of the plans to identify both potential impacts and possible
equitable solutions.

Second,
we can conduct a strategy session by phone with you and your allies to
discuss the project and how to employ Politically Oriented Advocacy to
resolve your concerns.

Third,
we would be delighted to try and answer specific questions free of charge by
phone, provided we don't need to do any research.

Again, this assistance is offered free to citizens. Just
give us a call at 410-654-3021 or e-mail us at:
Help@ceds.org. Besides our 300-page book
you'll also find other free publications and information on our website:
ceds.org

About two-thirds of the citizens we help take our free
assistance and run with the campaign on their own. The other third hire us
to manage a portion or all of their campaign. This is how we make the funds
needed to stay in business. So if you feel that winning a development battle
requires more time then you can spare, give us a call to discuss the cost of
having CEDS take over the more difficult or time-consuming aspects of the
campaign.

If you're uncertain how to get a campaign started then
consider retaining CEDS to conduct an Initial Strategy Analysis
which costs anywhere from $800 to $2,000. For further detail visit:
ceds.org/strategy.html.

Following are a few examples of the victories possible
with Politically Oriented Advocacy. CEDS was an active participant
in all of these examples.

Smart Growth:

Everyone has heard the phrase Smart Growth. But you may not know
that Smart Growth was a result of Politically Oriented Advocacy in
action. In the mid-1990s, the Sierra Club led a fight to save Chapman's
Forest - 2,000 acres of highly-sensitive forest near Washington, D.C.
Chapman's Forest became a focal point - a poster child - for the many ills
of dumb growth. The campaign generated so much public support that it
allowed former Maryland Governor Glendening to preserve all 2,000 acres and
he instituted Smart Growth as state policy and law. Of course,
Smart Growth is now a cornerstone of responsible growth management
nationally. And it all started because of the highly-successful execution of
Politically Oriented Advocacy at Chapman's Forest.

Through-Traffic Nixed:

Southfork Court is a quiet,
dead-end street with 14 townhomes. The Court is more then a place where
residents park their cars. Children play in the Court. An annual picnic and
other gatherings are held on the Court. But all this would've changed with
plans to extend the Court into a through-road to serve a proposed
development project. This action would have increased traffic on the Court
by 800%. County policy required a second means of emergency vehicle access
into the proposed development. An extension of Southfork Court was the only
way of meeting this requirement. CEDS research of past decisions revealed an
equitable solution. After extensive negotiations with the applicant and
County officials, they agreed to extend the Court and place a gate across it
which only emergency personnel could open. This solution provided the second
means of emergency access without any increase in normal traffic volume,
thus preserving the tranquility of Southfork Court.

Visual Impact Resolved:

Rural residents were deeply troubled by a proposal to build new houses
within view of their homes. They feared the loss of a natural view, light
trespass from street lamps, and glare from the floodlights new homeowners
tend to plaster all over their houses. After our clients threatened to get
the site downzoned (a real possibility) the applicant agreed to forego the
street lights, place a covenant in the homeowners association bylaws
restricting outside lighting, and to provide the additional landscaping
needed to preserve the view. These points were set forth in a written
agreement which the applicant and the rural residents signed. The agreement
also required making it a binding condition of County development approvals.
This makes government responsible for enforcement - not the rural residents.
The applicant also reimbursed the rural residents for the $2,000 they paid
CEDS to win this victory.

$500,000 in Aquatic
Resource Protection:

A massive
shopping center was proposed for a site at the head of a highly sensitive
river. Area citizens treasured the river but were not necessarily opposed to
the shopping center. However, they were very concerned about the thousands
of gallons of contaminated runoff which would flow from the shopping center
into the river. CEDS helped local activists demonstrate widespread community
support for preserving the river and organized a legal team which convinced
the applicant they were in for a long fight. The applicant then offered to
put in some additional runoff pollution controls, costing about $100,000. We
eventually got them to agree to what was really needed - $500,000 in aquatic
resource protection measures.

Globally Rare Wetland
Saved:

Wade's Savanna is one of
seven Central Coastal Plain Basin Swamps in the world. A mining
company had proposed excavating a 70-foot deep pit covering 140-acres next
to Wade's Savanna. The resulting extraction of sand and gravel would have
dewatered (and killed) Wade's Savanna. After partial execution of a strategy
developed by CEDS the applicant became convinced that they stood little
chance of getting mining permits. They then sold the site below market value
to a preservation organization.

Flawed Infill Stopped:

Suburban residents were concerned by a proposal to build five houses on lots
much smaller then theirs. The houses would have been unduly close and posed
other compatibility issues. CEDS discovered the applicant needed to run a
sewerline through the property owned by the residents. The residents are now
using this leverage to negotiate resolution of each concern with the
applicant.

When done right, the vast majority of POA activity is either negotiations
directly with regulatory staff and the applicant. And even the
activities involving elected or appointed officials is of a nonpartisan,
educational nature. In fact, it is rather rare for a campaign to
involve activities which meet the definition of "lobbying" much less
"electioneering".